The numbers are in. 2009 is tied for the second warmest year on record. And the first decade of the 21st century is the warmest on record.
So, while people obsess over hacked e-mails, the beat goes on.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
I can report a further dramatic twist to what has inevitably been dubbed "Glaciergate" - the international row surrounding the revelation that the latest report on global warming by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained a wildly alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a "poor application" of IPCC procedures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html I dunno. Its difficult to believe in all the global warming fearmongering when many of the claims are proven to be unscientific. While global warming theories may be controversial, there is no doubt that we are living beyond our means and that the earth cannot absorb the punishment meted out by humans. We must either learn to live sustainably or learn to live with the consequences of our actions.Pretty warm here in Northern Ontario. I've barely shovelled any so snow far, wood on knock eh. Shhh!
I can report a further dramatic twist to what has inevitably been dubbed "Glaciergate" - the international row surrounding the revelation that the latest report on global warming by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained a wildly alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a "poor application" of IPCC procedures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
I dunno. Its difficult to believe in all the global warming fearmongering when many of the claims are proven to be unscientific. While global warming theories may be controversial, there is no doubt that we are living beyond our means and that the earth cannot absorb the punishment meted out by humans. We must either learn to live sustainably or learn to live with the consequences of our actions.Well, let's be clear about this. The IPCC has acknowledged that it screwed up by including the date of 2035. That piece of information wasn't properly checked. But the glaciers are still melting. And the lives and livelihoods of a large portion of the world's population rely on the water from those glaciers.
Its a wonder that glaciers ever melted before we started burning fossil fuels, and yet, they did just that.
Its a wonder that glaciers ever melted before we started burning fossil fuels, and yet, they did just that.
Yeah, and there were wars and rich and poor and dictatorships before Stephen Harper and George W. Bush were ever born - yet those frickin' socialists blame them for everything.
Its a wonder that glaciers ever melted before we started burning fossil fuels, and yet, they did just that.
But do you have a clue why they melted?
Yep, it's amazing what a tiny increase in northern hemisphere summer insolation, the resulting drop in Earth's albedo, the subsequent ~50% increase in atmospheric CO2 (from ~180-190 ppmv to 280 ppmv), and the resulting increase in water vapour could do over 10,000 years.
Oh, look, CO2 has increased 38% in the the last 260 years, half of that in the last 60 years. Without an increase in insolation this time.
You might want to think about how warm Earth was the last time CO2 was at 387 ppmv, which was, oh, about 3-10 million years ago.
When there was no permanent ice in the northern hemisphere to melt.
What can the frickin socialists do about the fact that while solar panels can be produced profitably for ~$1/watt, the solar industry keeps the retail price @ ~$4-$5 per watt. While the Korean megacorp, Samsung is subsidised by Ontarians and allowed to profit from Ontario's captive electrical consumer, any real technological advances are kept away from the suckers who could reduce their dependence on grid power (and dependence on Samsung).
at present, a 5kw home solar system costs ~$30k but if power rates go from 8 cents/kwh (? in Ontario) to 40 cents/kwh and the cost of a solar system is reduced by volume production/subsidy (except there is only one taxpayer to provide the subsidies) to perhaps $15k, the payback period goes from 30 years to damn near yesterday.
While the frickin socialists are busy demonstrating, the corporations are b+eing their homes and stealing the silverware. Hey! Maybe Hydro Quebec will give Ontarians free power because Quebec's resources are not 'theirs'. If Hydro Quebec refuses does that mean Quebeckers are neoliberal greedypants?
fuck i am so sick of this shit, how is it that babble sounds so much like Freedominion these days?
fuck i am so sick of this shit, how is it that babble sounds so much like Freedominion these days?
I'm not taking a position on any of the above posts but are you saying that people shouldn't post if they're taking positions you don't agree with?
What can the frickin socialists do about the fact that while solar panels can be produced profitably for ~$1/watt, the solar industry keeps the retail price @ ~$4-$5 per watt.
If solar panels can be profitably produced and sold for ~$1/watt, then what is prohiiting you or anyone else from doing just that?
I'm not taking a position on any of the above posts but are you saying that people shouldn't post if they're taking positions you don't agree with?
Did I say that? NO!
Climate change deniers rank up there with those who want to end SSM, union bashing, and denial of womens equality rights.
Climate change deniers rank up there with those who want to end SSM, union bashing, and denial of womens equality rights.
Exactly, remind, except with climate change the stakes are much, much higher. As Ray Ladbury commented over at Tamino's Open Mind:
In a later post Ray expands on that:
The numbers are in. 2009 is tied for the second warmest year on record. And the first decade of the 21st century is the warmest on record.
So, while people obsess over hacked e-mails, the beat goes on.
This is according to GISS, which has 2005 as the warmest year on record. With any luck the HADCRUT temperatures will break the 1998 record (their warmest year on record) for last year or this year, and knock down another denialist talking point.
This is according to GISS, which has 2005 as the warmest year on record. With any luck the HADCRUT temperatures will break the 1998 record (their warmest year on record) for last year or this year, and knock down another denialist talking point.
I understand HADCRUT is being recalculated to use the GISS interpolation method to fill in gaps in the ligh lattitude land sation record, which should change their anomaly values a bit, but they still won't include the Arctic sea surface the way GISS does, so I doubt 2005 will bump 1998 after their recalculation.
This is according to GISS, which has 2005 as the warmest year on record. With any luck the HADCRUT temperatures will break the 1998 record (their warmest year on record) for last year or this year, and knock down another denialist talking point.
I understand HADCRUT is being recalculated to use the GISS interpolation method to fill in gaps in the ligh lattitude land sation record, which should change their anomaly values a bit, but they still won't include the Arctic sea surface the way GISS does, so I doubt 2005 will bump 1998 after their recalculation.
Recalculation is one thing, but I was referring to their ranking of 2009 and 2010. The differences in the inclusion of Arctic sea surface temperature make it unlikely that 2009 will top 1998, but given the margin of error it is possible. If the present El Nino conitinues through most of the year, 2010 will likely be warmer than 2009.
Yeah!! I agree with you. 2009 was the warmest year till now. The reason behind this may be global warming. Global warming is taking its toll on the climate.Now I think 2010 is gonna be the coolest year of the decade.
Acai Optimum
I have complete faith in the Earth. She'll endure long after we're gone.
I have complete faith in the Earth. She'll endure long after we're gone.
Earth will endure and recover from what ever we can throw at her.
Us, not so much maybe.
Who gives a shit about us, Transplant? Look at us! We're an invasive species. It's time to board the Mother Ship.
Who gives a shit about us, Transplant? Look at us! We're an invasive species. It's time to board the Mother Ship.
Mkay, you go first.
And be sure to let us know how it works out for you.
Tell that to the Olympic organizers in Vancouver who are having snow trucked in from Manning Park for their big show.
Yeah!! I agree with you. 2009 was the warmest year till now. The reason behind this may be global warming. Global warming is taking its toll on the climate. Now I think 2010 is gonna be the coolest year of the decade.
What can the frickin socialists do about the fact that while solar panels can be produced profitably for ~$1/watt, the solar industry keeps the retail price @ ~$4-$5 per watt.
If solar panels can be profitably produced and sold for ~$1/watt, then what is prohiiting you or anyone else from doing just that?
Ah! The free market response. I dunno why the price of solar panels has not yet exhibited the same sort of market dynamics that dropped the price of LCD flat screens from $thousands to $hundreds in a few short years.
Grid free renewable generation could reduce dependence on both institutionalised generation and monopoly. Removing millions of homes (and attendant electric vehicle recharging) from the power grid will reduce GHGs substantially. Converting home heating to ground source heat pumps will also help.
The secret to these solutions is to generate a market for renewable generation hardware that passes cost reductions for increased scale on to the consumer rather than throwing billions upon billions of tax dollars at the owners of this technology in subsidies.
Why should a manufacturer such as Samsung offer a competitive price for its proprietary technology in the open market when it can make a deal with Ontario to receive billions in subsidies to enslave Ontario consumers to their technology in perpetuity?
There is a technical issue with photovoltaic (or solar) panels that involves a voltage drop upon power leaving the cell that inhibits cell efficiency. When that hurdle is overcome, solar technology will advance exponentially.
Electrical power rates that are ~6 to 8 cents/kwh will soon become 40 cents/kwh. The average northerner paying $150 per month in winter will be paying ~ $700. A great encouragement toward a grid free system.
I'm not taking a position on any of the above posts but are you saying that people shouldn't post if they're taking positions you don't agree with?
Did I say that? NO!
Climate change deniers rank up there with those who want to end SSM, union bashing, and denial of womens equality rights.
Get a grip! Who is denying climate change? It appears that anyone who has the temerity to question or discuss the issue is labeled a "Climate change denier" by the acolytes of doom and gloom.
Personally, I don't doubt the legitimate science but find the uninformed alarmism of the sky-is-falling types to be counter-productive.
Did you read the latest on BC Hydro rate increases? Get ready to shell out to rebuild a 40 year old transmission system AND pay to provide transmission infrastructure to all those IPPs because BC Hydro is paying for the IPP power at source.
I also hope such a sturdy defender of the environment as yourself isn't a hypocrite and secretly burning wood for heat while scolding everyone else.
remind: "Climate change deniers rank up there with those who want to end SSM, union bashing, and denial of womens equality rights."
You overlook another comparable category. Those who learned in childhood while playing "house", how to play one part of the neighbourhood kids off against others. They still get a sadistic kick from that trick as they play "pretend adulthood." Real sweethearts.
Ya, I hear you George, and understand they need to grow the fuck up. It gets pretty damn sickening, sometimes, and I mean that seriously, on just wants to lean over and up chuck at the immature ignorance.
"Climate change deniers rank up there with those who want to end SSM, union bashing, and denial of womens equality rights."
Tell us how you really feel, don't be so reasonable, it only overshadows the point you're trying to make..
For anyone who wants to read a reasonable explanation of us evil deniers (even though most of us aren't), Andrew Coyne wrote a decent article for Macleans a few weeks ago, it is not unreasonable to question science. I was taught about global warming almost 20 yrs ago, my Environmental science degree and Env eng diploma, along with 10 yrs worth of weather observations and weather forecasting tell me the science isn't settled, most of my colleagues agree, but then we actually have relevant education and experience, what do you have?
You're statement says more about you than any climate change denier.
You just are not among the ranks of mainstream environmental scientists, yarg. What level DO you hang out at? (and Andrew Coyne is not "reasonable"...he pays homage to mammon at the altar of Adam Smith.
Where was that degree of yours obtained?
"Climate change deniers rank up there with those who want to end SSM, union bashing, and denial of womens equality rights."
Tell us how you really feel, don't be so reasonable, it only overshadows the point you're trying to make..
For anyone who wants to read a reasonable explanation of us evil deniers (even though most of us aren't), Andrew Coyne wrote a decent article for Macleans a few weeks ago, it is not unreasonable to question science. I was taught about global warming almost 20 yrs ago, my Environmental science degree and Env eng diploma, along with 10 yrs worth of weather observations and weather forecasting tell me the science isn't settled, most of my colleagues agree, but then we actually have relevant education and experience, what do you have?
You're statement says more about you than any climate change denier.
Ten years of weather observations and weather forecasting will tell you nothing about whether the science of global warming is settled or not. If you believe that they can then your education was wasted. It's not a question of whether the science is settled but what aspects of the science are settled to what extent. Some of the most notorious deniers reject the basic science. Actually it's what we don't know (details of potential feedback effects for example) that is really unsettling.
"Climate change deniers rank up there with those who want to end SSM, union bashing, and denial of womens equality rights."
Tell us how you really feel, don't be so reasonable, it only overshadows the point you're trying to make..
For anyone who wants to read a reasonable explanation of us evil deniers (even though most of us aren't), Andrew Coyne wrote a decent article for Macleans a few weeks ago, it is not unreasonable to question science. I was taught about global warming almost 20 yrs ago, my Environmental science degree and Env eng diploma, along with 10 yrs worth of weather observations and weather forecasting tell me the science isn't settled, most of my colleagues agree, but then we actually have relevant education and experience, what do you have?
You're statement says more about you than any climate change denier.
Ten years of weather observations and weather forecasting will tell you nothing about whether the science of global warming is settled or not. If you believe that they can then your education was wasted. It's not a question of whether the science is settled but what aspects of the science are settled to what extent. Some of the most notorious deniers reject the basic science. Actually it's what we don't know (details of potential feedback effects for example) that is really unsettling.
My point is climate change or no climate change, we are still living beyond our environmental means and need to address a more rapid transformation to renewable energy than simply subsidising megacorporations whose only interest is profit.
If government wants to subsidise, they should subsidise at the consumer level like the recent home renovation tax credit. Such a scheme may spur better pricing for renewable technology at the consumer level.
Ya, I hear you George, and understand they need to grow the fuck up. It gets pretty damn sickening, sometimes, and I mean that seriously, on just wants to lean over and up chuck at the immature ignorance.
Ah yes, blind obscene accusations of others are so 'grown up". Do you have anything to contribute to the issue?
remind: "Climate change deniers rank up there with those who want to end SSM, union bashing, and denial of womens equality rights."
You overlook another comparable category. Those who learned in childhood while playing "house", how to play one part of the neighbourhood kids off against others. They still get a sadistic kick from that trick as they play "pretend adulthood." Real sweethearts.
You forgot the kids who pout and go home when they can't get their own way by scolding and bullying the other kids.
If you think ad hominems take the place of reasoning, I'd suggest taking the time to inform yourself on the issue at hand.
"Climate change deniers rank up there with those who want to end SSM, union bashing, and denial of womens equality rights."
Tell us how you really feel, don't be so reasonable, it only overshadows the point you're trying to make..
For anyone who wants to read a reasonable explanation of us evil deniers (even though most of us aren't), Andrew Coyne wrote a decent article for Macleans a few weeks ago, it is not unreasonable to question science. I was taught about global warming almost 20 yrs ago, my Environmental science degree and Env eng diploma, along with 10 yrs worth of weather observations and weather forecasting tell me the science isn't settled, most of my colleagues agree, but then we actually have relevant education and experience, what do you have?
You're statement says more about you than any climate change denier.
Ten years of weather observations and weather forecasting will tell you nothing about whether the science of global warming is settled or not. If you believe that they can then your education was wasted. It's not a question of whether the science is settled but what aspects of the science are settled to what extent. Some of the most notorious deniers reject the basic science. Actually it's what we don't know (details of potential feedback effects for example) that is really unsettling.
My point is climate change or no climate change, we are still living beyond our environmental means and need to address a more rapid transformation to renewable energy than simply subsidising megacorporations whose only interest is profit.
If government wants to subsidise, they should subsidise at the consumer level like the recent home renovation tax credit. Such a scheme may spur better pricing for renewable technology at the consumer level.
you and yarg are the same person then?
"10 yrs worth of weather observations and weather forecasting tell me the science isn't settled, most of my colleagues agree, but then we actually have relevant education and experience, what do you have?
Do you? Have education and experience relavant to climatology, that is.
Your comment "10 yrs worth of weather observations and weather forecasting" suggests otherwise.
If you did have the relevant education and experience then you would know that climate is the long term average of weather over time and that 10 years tells you about the interannual variability of weather but nothing about any underlying long term trend in climate because natural variability can and does easily overwhelm the trend in any given year, or even in any given decade.
As to why, see How Long and Results on Deciding Trends.
We are all on the 'mothership' and for the forseeable future there is nowhere to go. The climate has been warming during the whole time of modern man, the subject that science is looking at is the rate of accelleration of that change and and the inclusion of 'trigger points'. Science is never settled, that's not in it's job description. Settled is an engineering conceit. However, scientists daily invent new methods of observation and interpretation and find errors in what they have done.
55 years ago I was involved in measurements of the shrinking of our local glacier that was the town's water supply, we did find nuclear fall-out from bomb testing in the livers of the Pica(now extinct). Let's pick a random scientist, say the guy that programs your average Cray/ Beowolf, do you expect him to articulate what he did to your grand-daughter? This message is coming to you over a stand of the purest glass ever made but it only works because it's contaminated with trace amounts of ruthnium. The last set of nuclear bombs made took an extra five years because they had lost the recipe for the trace inclusions. CO2 is the trace in our air, what a marvelous cycle it is.I see it's my birthday on rabble here. Salutations, bright eyes and clear thinking to all.
First of all, I would like to apologize to your rhetorical grand daughter. Second, while for some inexplicable reason we can't see the planet cook we should be able to look at the pressing water situation.
"10 yrs worth of weather observations and weather forecasting tell me the science isn't settled, most of my colleagues agree, but then we actually have relevant education and experience, what do you have?
Do you? Have education and experience relavant to climatology, that is.
Your comment "10 yrs worth of weather observations and weather forecasting" suggests otherwise.
If you did have the relevant education and experience then you would know that climate is the long term average of weather over time and that 10 years tells you about the interannual variability of weather but nothing about any underlying long term trend in climate because natural variability can and does easily overwhelm the trend in any given year, or even in any given decade.
As to why, see How Long and Results on Deciding Trends.
I don't pretend to understand the relevant science but accept it if proven sound. I can't do anything about industrial pollution or the increase in coal-fired generation capacity or the CO2 emissions of oilsands producers but I can do something about my own carbon footprint and I do as much as I can. Hence the interest in grid-free renewable generation, ground source heat pumps, living roofs etc.
Are temperature anomalies such as the hotter period around 950AD when the Vikings were farming some parts of Greenland or the extreme cold in the late 1800s considered as climate or weather? Do they have any influence on climate trends or is climate change based on the ability of the earth's atmosphere to repel (deflect, absorb?) solar radiation?
Are temperature anomalies such as the hotter period around 950AD when the Vikings were farming some parts of Greenland or the extreme cold in the late 1800s considered as climate or weather? Do they have any influence on climate trends or is climate change based on the ability of the earth's atmosphere to repel (deflect, absorb?) solar radiation?
First, don't make too much of Norse farming in Greenland. These were mainly dairy operations -- some of their cattle barns still stand! They mainly grew forage for their herds, plus some hardy garden root crops for human consumption.
As for waht constitutes climate, the World Meteorological Organization and just about every other meteorological and climatological body defines climate as the long term average of weather over time, with 30 years being the standard agreed-upon minimum time span needed to detect any underlying trend in climate within the normal year-to-year and decade-to-decade natural variability of weather. That 30 year timespan wasn't just pulled out of a hat. Check the links I provided above for an explanation of how the required timespan is determined by the data itself. Thirty years is also long enough that the 11 and 22 year solar sun spot cycles will balance out, as will the El Nino-La Nina and other natural circulation oscilations. These of course affect climate in the short term, but they are emergent properties of the climate system, not drivers of it, and they tend to cancel out in the long-term, except in unusual circumstances, such as the extended quite solar period known as the Maunder Minimum.
The Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings established setllements in Greenland, the Little Ice Age that followed the MWP and exterpated the Greenland Norse, the Holocene Climate Optimum of 6000-8000 yeras ago, were all long-term features of climate, not mere weather variation. Some of the causes of these changes in climate are known, others are not. The HCO coincides with maximum orbital-driven insolation, and since orbital driven insolation has been in decline ever since global temperatures generally have as well, with excursions both up and don from the trend.
I don't think there is concensus on what caused the MWP, although some suggest that agriculture (deforestation), particularly rice cultivation (creation of artificial wetlands , which generate methane) may have played a role. Several factors in addition to a lull in sun spot activity conspired to produce the LIA, including a spate of volcanic erruptions, and perhaps even a drawdown of atmospheric CO2 in the wake of pandemics in Europe and the Americas and subsequent reforestation as agricultural land was abandoned.
Read James Lovelock's The Ages of Gaia. It's all there. Ansd mainstream science accepts his account of what is occurring.
Good post, transplant. It gives perspective to much of the detailed CC data that the average person simply cannot relate to.
The sneering denunciations of "Joe Sixpack" as stupid "climate change deniers" by the more radical fringe posters misses the point that most of the media alarmism about climate change centers on micro data that can be manipulated to create controversy in order to generate revenue rather than any genuine effort to educate. Most people don't bother to invest the time to inform themselves.
fuck i am so sick of this shit, how is it that babble sounds so much like Freedominion these days?
I'm not taking a position on any of the above posts but are you saying that people shouldn't post if they're taking positions you don't agree with?
About 99% of the problem here is that people are too busy being 'nice' to take a position.
Who gives a shit about us, Transplant? Look at us! We're an invasive species. It's time to board the Mother Ship.
Mkay, you go first.
And be sure to let us know how it works out for you.
What would you like to know?
And 1/3 of that 99% can be laid at the feet of Political Correctness.
Doesn't take any time to use the brain the Good Lord gave you.
Heard him on CBC sometime between the summer of 2006 and 2008. Lovely man.
Happy Birthday, EPH!
And 1/3 of that 99% can be laid at the feet of Political Correctness.
"Political correctness" is what the Right demands of the Left to cripple and silence us. It is not our affliction, it is a hobbling imposed on us.
The claim that "Joe Sixpack" sides with the corporatocracy in their denial of climate change is a BIG LIE unworthy of even the likes of you, canuquetoo.
And 1/3 of that 99% can be laid at the feet of Political Correctness.
"Political correctness" is what the Right demands of the Left to cripple and silence us. It is not our affliction, it is a hobbling imposed on us.
Wrong. You have to learn to blame the victim.
The claim that "Joe Sixpack" sides with the corporatocracy in their denial of climate change is a BIG LIE unworthy of even the likes of you, canuquetoo.
It's not a lie; it's just an error. Joe Sixpack has his own reasons.
????
????
Articulate. Please.
I completely lack any understanding of your posts. I'm coming to dread them, actually. No offense meant, I just find them consistently off-topic and incomprehensible. It might be me; but more likely, it's us. We don't seem to be able to communicate clearly to one another.
To explain:
"BIG LIE" is a classic term coined by Goebbels denoting deliberate misinformation on a large scale. It can't be 'just an error'.
According to all of the legitimate polls I've ever seen, "Joe Sixpack" (aka the general public) understands and supports doing something about global warming - even in Alberta, though canuquetoo wishes it weren't so.
The claim that "Joe Sixpack" sides with the corporatocracy in their denial of climate change is a BIG LIE unworthy of even the likes of you, canuquetoo.
What claim? "BIG LIE"? More like big comprehension problem. The quote below from the Open Mind link is what I'm refering to. Technical wonks refering to the public in pejoritive terms for not informing themselves is no way to enlist support. I didn't say Joe was agreeing with corporate denial.
I really am apalled that stupid has become a lifestyle. Joe Sixpack and Jane Winebox have decided that somehow objective reality just doesn't apply to them-and there's no consequence. You're considered rude if you point out to them that they are being stupid. Their vote counts the same as that of somebody sane. I really don't see how our country comes back from this.
The point I'm making is that it is disingenuous for the denouncers of "Joe Sixpack" to claim he is a climate change denier.
You've got it backwards. The truth lies more in the fact that the alarmist industry's aim is to create controversy as a revenue generation tool, whatever their position is. Joe isn't engaged enough in the issue to invest the time to separate fact from fiction.
Doesn't take any time to use the brain the Good Lord gave you.
Ok. your PhD is in the mail. if it doesn't take any time to use the brain the good lord gave you, everyone can have one.
Backwards?
Compare the revenues of the "alarmist industry" with those of the oil oligarchy. It's the mote in my eye versus the beam in yours.
And who's denouncing "Joe Sixpack" here, again?
I completely lack any understanding of your posts. I'm coming to dread them, actually. No offense meant, I just find them consistently off-topic and incomprehensible. It might be me; but more likely, it's us. We don't seem to be able to communicate clearly to one another.
To explain:
"BIG LIE" is a classic term coined by Goebbels denoting deliberate misinformation on a large scale. It can't be 'just an error'.
According to all of the legitimate polls I've ever seen, "Joe Sixpack" (aka the general public) understands and supports doing something about global warming - even in Alberta, though canuquetoo wishes it weren't so.
even in Alberta, though canuquetoo wishes it weren't so. You're really on a roll with this "BIG LIE" gimmick aren't you? What does deliberately misrepresenting my position say about you, Herr Jezus? My position is that innovation and technology will lead us into a sustainable reality where renewable energy will create good jobs but that day is not yet here. In the meantime, innovation and technology in the hydrocarbon industry will lead to lower CO2 emissions. We still need the hydrocarbon industry to transition into naescent green technology.Joe Sixpack and Jane Winebox? Jeezus, ...and I mean the real one, LTJ. Do you think we could all come up with less offensive and classist not to say sexist characterizations???
And while we're at it, how 'bout you two leaving the Nazi references behind.
...Jane Winebox....fuck,...never even heard of that one. *shakes head*
My position is that innovation and technology will lead us into a sustainable reality where renewable energy will create good jobs but that day is not yet here. In the meantime, innovation and technology in the hydrocarbon industry will lead to lower CO2 emissions. We still need the hydrocarbon industry to transition into naescent green technology.
Ah, yes. The other Big Lie: that technology will save us all, no matter how ignorantly we defile the planet. The neocons always point to incremental reductions in emissions while pimping for exponential expansion of Tar Sands production, and 'intensity-based' targets.
"Allow us to quadruple our production in ten years, and we promise to reduce our emissions per barrel by 25% during the same period."
Our buddy Joe is a rocket scientist compared to these guys.
I completely lack any understanding of your posts. I'm coming to dread them, actually. No offense meant, I just find them consistently off-topic and incomprehensible. It might be me; but more likely, it's us. We don't seem to be able to communicate clearly to one another.
To explain:
"BIG LIE" is a classic term coined by Goebbels denoting deliberate misinformation on a large scale. It can't be 'just an error'.
According to all of the legitimate polls I've ever seen, "Joe Sixpack" (aka the general public) understands and supports doing something about global warming - even in Alberta, though canuquetoo wishes it weren't so.
I appreciate your patience, LTJ. I thought Joe Sixpack was one of the Trailer Park Boys. I thought "Joe Sixpack" was what the Illuminati called the unwashed masses. I thought Joe Sixpack was the moniker used to describe someone who couldn't make it through high school.
I just took 20 mg of Loxapine. I'll be back to "normal" soon.
canuquetoo wrote:
"My position is that innovation and technology will lead us into a sustainable reality where renewable energy will create good jobs but that day is not yet here. In the meantime, innovation and technology in the hydrocarbon industry will lead to lower CO2 emissions. We still need the hydrocarbon industry to transition into naescent green technology."
"But that day is not yet here..." Incredibly perceptive. "in the meantime..."
We carry on, waiting for the second (technological) coming, while the temperature rises. Inspirational. Confidence building, based on the science of...the Tar Pit engineers based in Fort McMordor.
canuquetoo wrote:
"My position is that innovation and technology will lead us into a sustainable reality where renewable energy will create good jobs but that day is not yet here. In the meantime, innovation and technology in the hydrocarbon industry will lead to lower CO2 emissions. We still need the hydrocarbon industry to transition into naescent green technology."
"But that day is not yet here..." Incredibly perceptive. "in the meantime..."
We carry on, waiting for the second (technological) coming, while the temperature rises. Inspirational. Confidence building, based on the science of...the Tar Pit engineers based in Fort McMordor.
Sure, we'll all freeze in the dark while the shining lights of 'green' in the east save the planet by selling out to Samsung, chatter about shutting down Canada's single largest polluter, Nanticoke, for another 40 years and busily export asbestos to third world countries.
Sure, the 'temperature' is rising but at least in the west, billions of dollars are invested in innovation and technology while in Ontario, Nanticoke is busily polluting while the good folks 'talk'.
Clean up your own mess before finger-pointing, George. All you fume about is "tar pits" while your own toxic dump festers about your ears. Don't worry about "tar pits", your own Ontario transgressions will kill you long before any western pollution does.
Check out the air quality of "Fort McMordor" and compare it to that bastion of hypocracy that you breathe in.
You will notice that federal funding for Tar Patch tech innovation continues, while federal spending on a national program of wind turbine development is now kaput. It is not likely that Ontario industry will ever recover (unless we can utilize public savings for its development) and our deficit is huge, while the whingy right of Alberta complain about a three-year setback from balanced budgeting. And Preston Manning pulls your strings with impunity because you have no idea what puppet theatre you represent, there in the land of big oil and sour gas.
... now that the el Nino effect is over and la nina is here, the western nations will feel that heat - I predict the summer of 2010 will be the warmest summer on record for North America.
PS - The oceans are acidifying too.
Noah, take it from Jeremiah...easy on the (short term) predictions.
... now that the el Nino effect is over and la nina is here, the western nations will feel that heat - I predict the summer of 2010 will be the warmest summer on record for North America.
PS - The oceans are acidifying too.
The current El Nino is weakening but is not over yet, according to NOAA. I'd be careful with the predictions too.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/...
Noah, take it from Jeremiah...easy on the (short term) predictions.
Jeremiah Who? Sweet Jeremiah? That one?
You will notice that federal funding for Tar Patch tech innovation continues, while federal spending on a national program of wind turbine development is now kaput. It is not likely that Ontario industry will ever recover (unless we can utilize public savings for its development) and our deficit is huge, while the whingy right of Alberta complain about a three-year setback from balanced budgeting. And Preston Manning pulls your strings with impunity because you have no idea what puppet theatre you represent, there in the land of big oil and sour gas.
Yeah, well, if you rustbelt residents can focus on correcting your failures rather than whining about western successes, you may be able to kickstart your economy. There is a plethora of solutions to eastern economic malaise - you just have to quit complaining and get to work.
Look east - to your good pal Jean Charest. M. Charest is busily working to improve Quebec's economy:
The provincial government is urging Quebec businesses to seize the opportunities offered by the oil sands during a trade mission to Edmonton next month.
The invitation was made on an ad on the website for the provincial government's Department of Economic Development, Innovation and Exports.
The message is a far cry from the one delivered at the recent climate conference in Copenhagen, where the Charest government cast itself as the green hero to Alberta's environmental villain.
The government website explains that Suncor, Encana, and Imperial are expected to spend $200-billion on oil sands development projects over the coming years.
The site invites Quebec business people to join a four-day trade mission to Alberta starting March 22, and it promises $250 travel subsidies for each company that sends a representative.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebec-quietly-promotes-oil-sands-opportunities/article1466537/
We westerners are simply amazed at M. Charest's keen sense of self worth.
Ah yes, "self worth." the overiding concern of your kind. Do your type ever express concern for future generations? How would you rate their life chances? Selling them out is easy as hell, isn't it. Go with the flow of all the selfo-absorbed around you.
Attack the messenger when you can't think of an attack on the message, George? "your kind"? "your type"? How about adressing the issue?
How kind of you to claim that anyone not agreeing with your biases is "selling out" "future generations". If only you could give us some solutions to Ontario's economic malaise other than tearing down Alberta's economy to match the rustbelt.
It is mindless bullshit like your post above that debases critical analysis of legitimate environmental issues.
Luckily, most Ontarians are quite happy to be the first choice for oilsands component manufacturing and oilsands producers are happy to have Ontario's proven engineering and manufacturing capacity available.
Sir Wilfred was a century premature. It is the 21st century that will belong to Canada, grumpy eastern Luddites aside.
We westerners are simply amazed at M. Charest's keen sense of self worth.
Please do not presume to speak for westerners.
George, buddy, give it up. You are up against a Yeast People. Yeast People are people who will kill their own progeny for a buck and call it economics. These people, generally, believe in the adolescent, NASCAR philosophy that "he who dies with the most toys wins". It is the attitude that no other existence nor life nor future matters but his own. You can't argue with them; you can't apply logic nor reason. You can only hope they extinguish themselves before they extinguish all other life on Earth.
The planet has warmed up and cooled down multiple times in the past without our influence, prove that it isn't happening again.
Here's a hint, you can't.
I am all for clean energy, more efficiency, less pollution of all kinds, including hedging our bets against global warming, however approaching any side of this issue like a religious zealot isn't helpful, it weakens your position. Just like getting your information about melting glaciers from a climbing magazine weakens science, how much more of this body of reasearch has been put on shaky ground by a rush to find evidence for an expected conclusion? Thats simply bad scientific method, call it what it is, don't defend the indefensible.
George, buddy, give it up. You are up against a Yeast People. Yeast People are people who will kill their own progeny for a buck and call it economics. These people, generally, believe in the adolescent, NASCAR philosophy that "he who dies with the most toys wins". It is the attitude that no other existence nor life nor future matters but his own. You can't argue with them; you can't apply logic nor reason. You can only hope they extinguish themselves before they extinguish all other life on Earth.
Lol, there we go again, anyone who has doubts is a part of the NASCAR philosophy, you just don't get it do you. If you were a conservative you would be posting on free dominion.
That would explain why I'm not posting on Free Dominion, wouldn't it? The question, is why is a denialist, anti-science, anti-intellectual posting here? Aren't you more comfortable with your own kind, welcoming the new Age of Ignorance, embracing technology but denying the science behind it, denying Darwin but raising your children to be obese and beset with Type-2 diabetes on genetically modified corn? Wouldn't you rather be at FD where weather and climate are one in the same and where all resources are infinite no matter how many F-150s we fill and park in front of the Big Box Consumerator?
The planet has warmed up and cooled down multiple times in the past without our influence, prove that it isn't happening again.
Here's a hint, you can't.
I am all for clean energy, more efficiency, less pollution of all kinds, including hedging our bets against global warming, however approaching any side of this issue like a religious zealot isn't helpful, it weakens your position. Just like getting your information about melting glaciers from a climbing magazine weakens science, how much more of this body of reasearch has been put on shaky ground by a rush to find evidence for an expected conclusion? Thats simply bad scientific method, call it what it is, don't defend the indefensible.
So what's the expected conclusion? The science in the peer-reviewed literature is overwhelming enough. As for the proof, it's a question of how much proof you need. You can't explain paleoclimates without carbon dioxide and solar insolation changes (either through changes in output from the sun or milankovitch cycles), although there are other climate drivers of course, and the Earth doesn't care where the carbon dioxide comes from.
...don't bother trying to argue that the facts are against him, Policywonk - his mind is made up.
That's made up as in "they made it all up".
Thanks for that LTJ. And waddya know, the Heartland Institute, devoted to "free market solutions" is in Chicago!
Search ResultsHeartland Institute www.heartland.org19 South La Salle Street
Chicago, IL 60603-1427
(312) 377-4000
Get directions - Is this accurate?This address, phone number, map or business info is not accurate. Confirm CancelThank you for the feedback. Subway: Washington/Wells1 review
More information »
Funny thing is 'climategate' is about private e-malls between serious scientists, discussions of whether or not minor controversies within the science should be discussed publicly - because they feared the results when the likes of the Heartland Institute became aware of these issues.
Turns out that they were perfectly correct in their fears.
I'm seeing the ground at the base of the pine tree in backyard, and there's been green grass around the basement wall of the house for most of the winter. Not a lot of snow has fallen in this part of Northern Ontario. Strange.
We westerners are simply amazed at M. Charest's keen sense of self worth.
Please do not presume to speak for westerners.
The floor is all yours. Please tell us your opinion of M. Charest's defense of Quebec's asbestos exports to the third world and encouragement of oilsands contract procurement while simultaniously denouncing oilsands impacts?
We westerners are simply amazed at M. Charest's keen sense of self worth.
Please do not presume to speak for westerners.
The floor is all yours. Please tell us your opinion of M. Charest's defense of Quebec's asbestos exports to the third world and encouragement of oilsands contract procurement while simultaniously denouncing oilsands impacts?
As for myself, I openly oppose old line party rule on the one day of protest that counts for anything, and it comes around once every four years.
What a novel idea Canuq. "Halt the damage " by "accelerating technological change" has been played for a couple of centuries now and is recognized as the swan song of our species. Requiring that conspicuous consumers park their SUVs would not occur to those of your limited mentality as a start to radical lifestyle change that does not depend on a technology that is driven by the need for ever more energy.
Fortunately your type does not speak for all in the West. There is hope for us all.
The figure - an estimate by doctors at the Mexican Institute of Social Security, a government health agency - is likely to spur further controversy over Canada's aggressive promotion of the cancer-causing material in the developing world. Concerns over asbestos were a focus of attention during Quebec Premier Jean Charest's recent trade mission to India. He defended the mineral, which is mined in his province and supports about 700 jobs.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/controversy-brews-over-asbestos-deaths-in-mexico/article1467211/
Unfortunately, George, the type that is not the type you disingenuously present me to represent is still an unmitigated pious hypocrite.
Unfortunately for us all, that pious hypocrite type has all the power and no conscience.
Oil is good and asbestos is bad. Marvelous sophistry Canuq...particularly watching you play Dr. Decider. Or perhaps you did not mean it to look so "unbalanced" ?
What a novel idea Canuq. "Halt the damage " by "accelerating technological change" has been played for a couple of centuries now and is recognized as the swan song of our species. Requiring that conspicuous consumers park their SUVs would not occur to those of your limited mentality as a start to radical lifestyle change that does not depend on a technology that is driven by the need for ever more energy.
Fortunately your type does not speak for all in the West. There is hope for us all.
Hmmm.....Unfortunately, your pal M. Charest appears to be a switch hitter, George. McGuinty is also on the oilsands bus with him. "My type" is more your ally than those you hold near and dear but then, you always will refuse to acknowledge how their words are used to dupe you while their actions speak to their true intent. Maybe you should concentraste your wrath on closing Nanticoke rather than grumpy fulminations about "my type"
The site invites Quebec business people to join a four-day trade mission to Alberta starting March 22, and it promises $250 travel subsidies for each company that sends a representative.
"The launch of oil sands development projects [offers] business opportunities to seize," the ad says.
"This is a unique opportunity for businesses to position themselves to establish ties to the big decision-makers of Alberta's energy sector."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebec-quietly-promotes-oil...canuquetoo you've been warned about personal attacks. You're outta here.
"Hmmm.....Unfortunately, your pal M. Charest appears to be a switch hitter, George. McGuinty is also on the oilsands bus with him. "My type" is more your ally than those you hold near and dear but then, you always will refuse to acknowledge how their words are used to dupe you while their actions speak to their true intent. Maybe you should concentraste your wrath on closing Nanticoke rather than grumpy fulminations about "my type" "
The chaps you mention are not my pals, Canuq. They are part of the problem. It is you who plays this as an East-West contest of ethics. Try another taunting tack my ridiculous friend. Try to raise the bar of your thinking to the plight of Homo sapiens (and yes I know, FM, that we're dealing with another level of 'culture" here, but one must try to bring its thinking up out of the petrie dish).
(whoops...well maybe my true nationalist and human sentiment will shine through here and protect this babbler from the wrath of Mod.
Wrath of Mod....I like that. Thanks George.
Thanks old goat, are you getting his sock puppet yarg too?
See above where I caught him out!
Climate change is affecting your morning coffee. That might make more people pay attention.
The planet has warmed up and cooled down multiple times in the past without our influence, prove that it isn't happening again.
Here's a hint, you can't.
Here's a hint for yarg:
Nothing in science is ever "proven" because science doesn't do "proof." Period.
That makes your argument a non-starter.
What science does deal in is observations, measurements and evidence, and what the scientific facts and evidence demonstrate is that the usual natural drivers of warming and cooling -- 1) changes in solar insolation due to earth's orbital variations, and 2) changes in solar radiance -- can not explain the warming of the past hundred, much less past thirty years.
Orbital driven insolation is in decline and has been for the last 10000 years. Strike one.
While an increase in solar radiance almost certainly accounted for a good portion of the observed warming between 1900 and 1950, and for a smaller portion of the warming from 1950 to 1980, after 1980 solar radiance flattened while global mean temperature continued to increase. Strike 2.
But, if we add the warming produced by the measured increase in greenhouse gases on top of natural drivers we get a pretty close accounting of the observed warming.
No, that's not "proof," but the evidence is quite strong -- far, far stronger than the evidence that the warming was natural.
And as for that article in Climbing magazine about melting glaciers, it was written by scientist and science writer Mark Bowen, who also happens to be a climber.
But hey, never let facts get in the way of using a perfectly good piece of misinformation.
It is fact that we don't know for sure if our impact on the environment is the cause of the current warming. It is a likely additive, but not known to be the only cause. This is not complicated. o and as far as misinformation goes when this guy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
says there has been no stastically significant warming for the last 15 yrs will you choose not to believe him? O and by the research shown in that article the temp has only gone up .161 degrees since 1975, .161 degrees... so while all of the chicken little climate zealots have been running around spreading fear and commenting on how hot it is now a days the temp only increased on average .161 degrees since 1975 and .64 degrees since 1860.
So, as I have said before I fully accept anthropogenic climate change as a possibility, most reasonable people would, however the problem are those on the fringes the deniers or true believers, both are so entrenched in their own zealotry that they deny the possibility of the answer lying somewhere in the middle, as answers often do. I want clean energy, I want less pollution, we can and should do better, I am an environmentalist, but also a realist, standing on the street corner with a sign that reads 'the end is near' while the planet actually cools a little isn't going to win you any allies, it does more damage than good, what if the cooling continues for 20yrs? more?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
That was in 1974, I'm sure many of you have seen it, science has come a long way since then but it isn't infalible.
Hey Old Goat are you going to get the sock puppet too?
You mean the one that calls himself "reasonable" remind? An "environmentalist but also a realist" ? :)
yarg doesn't understand the principles involved in science, let alone the precautionary principle. Like his fellow Tar Patch advocates, he' s happy rolling the dice, shooting crap. Screw the people of Nunavut or folks where desertification steals farmland. He is a "reasonable" man.
See post # 32 above, and babble/rabble is making me a bit short tempered, so I may take a break for awhile, perhaps until it decides whether it is going to actually be a voice of status quo and Conservatives, or not.
It is fact that we don't know for sure if our impact on the environment is the cause of the current warming. It is a likely additive, but not known to be the only cause.
Argue by straw-man often, do you? No one who understands science claims humans are the only cause, but we know with 95% confidence that our impact on the climate is a main cause of the current warming.
o and as far as misinformation goes when this guy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
says there has been no stastically significant warming for the last 15 yrs will you choose not to believe him?
Yes, let's do talk about misinformation, because that is not what Phil Jones said.
See Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?.
O and by the research shown in that article the temp has only gone up .161 degrees since 1975, .161 degrees...
You might want to work on improving your reading comprehension skills.
That's 0.161 degrees C per decade!
This is how misinformation originates: repeat something that you don't understand in the first place.
ETA: And by the way, that 0.161 C is based on the HadCRUT data set, which does not include most of the Arctic and Antarctic, exactly where the warming has been greatist. If you use NASA GISS, which does include both polar regions, then the warming rate is a lot closer to the predicted 0.2 C per decade.
So, as I have said before I fully accept anthropogenic climate change as a possibility, most reasonable people would, however the problem are those on the fringes the deniers or true believers, both are so entrenched in their own zealotry that they deny the possibility of the answer lying somewhere in the middle, as answers often do.
For the answer to lie in the middle you have to assume that both sides on the question of global warming/climate change have equal validity, but that is an assumption refuted by reality: the science is overwhelmingly on one side only.
And oh look, yarg trots out the old "coming ice age" cannard from the news magazine Time from 1974.
You might want to check on what the actual scientific literature said: Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?
I want clean energy, I want less pollution, we can and should do better, I am an environmentalist
This is what's known as concern trolling. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
says there has been no stastically significant warming for the last 15 yrs will you choose not to believe him?
I'm not sure that you understood what he meant. What he means is that 15 years is too short a time to have statistical significance. This does not mean that there has not been global warming, just that you can't say there was to a probability of 95% using only the last 15 years of data. Obviously there is more data than that. More from RealClimate on this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/
Another bit of news for the denialists. There's a company prepared to risk a billion dollars on the proposition that the arctic climate has changed enough to allow the placement of an undersea cable.
Prompted by melting Arctic sea ice, the Alaska-based Arctic Cable Company announced last month that it was preparing to place a globe-girdling, 16,000-kilometre-long communications cable on Canada's Arctic Ocean seabed — an ambitious and inevitably controversial bid to create a super-fast, high-tech link between the international financial centres of Tokyo and London.
The weather here is insane - this is snow country, it's still February, it's 7C/45F, and no snow anywhere! At this rate, I'll be gardening in April instead of waiting until June.
The weather here is insane - this is snow country, it's still February, it's 7C/45F, and no snow anywhere! At this rate, I'll be gardening in April instead of waiting until June.
Long.
Policywonk, posting at #66 is a great chart. This stream needs to continue without the duelling trolls. maybe try; 'climate planning for economics'; I'll watch. EPH